Costin,
> Consensus or at least a majority :-)
I believe he was using the common dictionary definition, not refering to
unanimity.
> [agregating blogs ( or subsets ) from the apache community]
> is a very different and IMO more important issue.
> Putting this information togheter and making it
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Costin Manolache wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> Consensus or at least a majority :-) After all discussion, I think that's
> what has to happen - someone who wants this to happen should call for a
> vote, otherwise we'll never know.
>
> Probabl
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Thus, the ASF is governed by the community it most directly serves
> -- the people collaborating within its projects.
>
> That is the guiding principle for all resources spend. That is the spirit
> which the board has to make sure we
> For those of us that are not on infrastructure@, what's the summary thus
> far? Is it just the obvious which can be gleaned from the above, ie Andy
> proposed blog software installed on an apache.org machine and someone
> -1'ed it, or was it merely a page linking to blogs?
Essentially infrastru
Rich Bowen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
For those of us that are not on infrastructure@, what's the summary thus
far? Is it just the obvious which can be gleaned from the above, ie Andy
proposed blog software installed on an apache.org machine and someone
-1'ed it, or was it m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> [Moved from infrastructure@ at DWvG's suggestion]
>
> > I continue to feel a bit disenchanted with the group of folks "I don't
> > see need for this, -1" for various efforts, where non-participation
> > wo
Friday, January 24, 2003 4:58 AM
> To: community@apache.org
> Subject: RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
>
>
> [Moved from infrastructure@ at DWvG's suggestion]
>
> > I continue to feel a bit disenchanted with the group of folks "I
[Moved from infrastructure@ at DWvG's suggestion]
> I continue to feel a bit disenchanted with the group of folks "I don't
> see need for this, -1" for various efforts, where non-participation
> would be the most appropriate (IMHO) avenue of "protest".
Excuse me, Andrew, but you *are* aware that
